March 15, 2011

"Will the other 3 Democratic-appointed Supreme Court judges play along with this slightly banana-republicy game? True, conservatives have often campaigned against liberal judges after unpopular rulings (e.g., Rose Bird in California). But it seems even worse, in terms of legal etiquette, to elect a judge in order to make a particular ruling, about a particular law, in a particular upcoming case."

Goo goo groups decried the "politicization" and campaign spending on the Supreme Court race in 2008 between Michael Gableman and Supreme Court Justice Louis Butler Jr., in which business generally supported Gableman and unions and trial lawyers spent heavily on Butler. Gableman won.

Gableman won using the kind of conservative judicial argument that was used (back in 1986) against Rose Bird: that his opponent takes an overly expansive view of the rights of the criminally accused. This argument presents the conservative candidate as properly judicial and the opponent as inappropriately activist. The liberal counterpart to that argument would be that the conservative opponent — in an inappropriate enthusiasm for locking up criminals — refuses to see rights that really exist and would be seen under a properly judicial approach to decisionmaking.

This isn't the argument I've been hearing from Kloppenburg supporters. They're saying let's recoup political power through the judiciary and get a judge who will see judicial power as political and strike down the legislation passed by the democratic branches of government. This is the exact opposite of the argument that has worked in the past, and it should backfire against Kloppenburg. If Kloppenburg is the completely political candidate, then voters who want to preserve the integrity of the judiciary should vote for Prosser.

As we've seen during this ugly demonstration of public employee union greed and thuggery though, Wisconsin is not the paragon of high minded civic virtue its supporters like to think (and portray) it as.

I don't understand the problem here. When it appeared that the Republicans might lose the election of 2000 to Al Gore, they did everything they needed to do to win, including getting the Supremes to throw the election. So why shouldn't Democrats who dislike Walker's reign push back against it? Republicans created the "do whatever it takes" playbook, and now they're whining that Democrats have finally learned the lesson.

Stop whining. This is how democracy works. It's messy. But it's ridiculous to tell the other side to "play by the rules". They are playing by the rules. End runs are allowed. It's all in the playbook.

I think if this were an an ordinary election you'd be right and Kloppenburg would be careful to present herself as non-political. However, the amount of energy and organizational support that the union side has right now makes it very tempting for a judge to sort of wink at the union supporters and subtly (or not so subtly) let them know that she's really on their side.

Prosser won more votes in the open primary than the three liberal candidates combined. And this occurred without groups like AFP and the Tea Party being particularly active. When both sides mobilize the result will be that Prosser still wins.

Until Loophole Louis was defeated by Gableman, no sitting Wisconsin Supreme Court had lost an election in over 40 years.

rocketeer, you wouldn't vote for a neighbor for a public office? Really? Is that a statement on you or your neighborhood, or both?

I admire anyone who has the guts to run for office. Meeting all those strangers would be horrible for me. I see JK at school functions, walking around the neighborhood, chatting with others. A nicely normal person.

I admire anyone who has the guts to run for office. Meeting all those strangers would be horrible for me. I see JK at school functions, walking around the neighborhood, chatting with others. A nicely normal person.

I think it's nice to vote for neighbors, but it certainly can't hurt that she seems to fit your political POV.

Can someone explain exactly how the judge is supposed to overturn this result? Aren't the Democratic senators ever going to come back? At that point, can't the senate just pass the original version of the bill if there's any issue?

When you see the word because, do you insert an only in front of it, or an in part?

(Going back to my 11:34 comment)

I don't insert anything in front of it. Should I? Don't you type what you mean? Is there some set of guidelines you've published somewhere to clue me in about the universally accepted assumptions I'm supposed to make in reading your comments?

I am surprised that they are even having another election for the judgeship. From most of the elections I have read about, if one candidate takes over half the votes in the primary,then that candidate is deemed to win and there is no runoff.